Can Boards do Deliberative Thought? - Part 2

AGITATOR, n. A statesman who shakes the fruit trees of his neighbors -- to dislodge the worms.
-- Ambrose Bierce, “Devil’s Dictionary” 1868

We ended yesterday’s post with overwhelming psycho-dynamics overcoming the board’s ability to do deliberative thought, but that's not all that's involved here. Let’s explore this further.

Once a set of giving strategies is developed (slightly complicated "brainstorming"), the board must decide how to put these strategies in place, implement them, evaluate the results they're getting at regular intervals, and then provide a way to make any mid-course corrections that might be needed depending on what the strategy evaluation shows.

This is not only detailed work, but a fairly time-consuming activity for a board, and it will take a longer-term process than most board members can tolerate. It takes some concentration, commitment, open-mindedness and a lot of patience with the details in order to be done correctly and in a way that will bring a positive result to the organization. But the members of most boards I have seen operating feel they have neither the time nor the patience to engage in this kind of process. And, don't forget, those questions of self-image and other-perception are working unconsciously to impede this kind of work.

Not only that, but wouldn't it be good if the decision could be based on full consensus by the board rather than done by “majority vote”? But that would mean all viewpoints have been voiced, heard, taken into account and everyone fully included throughout the process. This would promote a strong sense of ownership and "buy-in" for all the Board members. But very few, if any, boards are disposed to take the time and energy to get that far in their decision-making.

Consensus decision-making is a pretty complicated process, but it can bring about a solid decision that has positive results. But the psycho-dynamics of a board's working together make it nearly impossible for a board to make such a decision in this way, using deliberative thought. So what generally happens?

One of two things generally happens with such a decision-making process: either the executive director of the nonprofit will have the perspicacity to have his/her staff do most of the deliberative work and bring alternatives back to the board for them to review and approve; or, what happens all too frequently, the executive just bulls on ahead, gives the board the decision, let's them go at it in helter-skelter style without any expertise or guidance, and hopes they emerge with some kind of giving process that most of the board can tolerate.

In the process, of course, the organization may well lose some good leadership as the more disgruntled board members, who feel their legitimate concerns were not heard, simply give up and resign. Pain all around.

Why pain? Because the decision is flawed to start with, which makes it difficult to carry out; pain because some people are left out or passed over; pain because the ability of the board to lead has been hampered rather than strengthened by the decision-making process; pain because the staff will have to implement the board giving program and yet have had no substantive, deliberative input.

Why? Because the board was given a task that, essentially, they are not prepared or qualified to do – they were asked to do deliberative thought, when what they really do best is brainstorming and telling stories.

Before I suggest what should be done – that is, a better way to make such a complicated decision – let's go on to example #2, which, you’ll remember, has to do with the board making a decision to invest some of the nonprofit’s revenue in ramping up its fundraising infrastructure.

This is a much more complicated kind of decision that once again calls on the board members to do deliberative thought in order to produce a sound, workable decision. We'll find further insights there on Monday.

In the meantime, don't forget that April Fool's Day is Sunday. So get prepared to make or be made one!